justdancefandomcom-20200222-history
Talk:Just Dance 2017/@comment-30087800-20170417174635/@comment-1465604-20170426104208
"Into You" is far from explicit, though. Far from it. "Closer" is explicit and even more "explicit" if we go by themes (theft, public nudity, public sex, etc). "Into You" is about two people who could be argued to be in love and are keeping their relationship secret for whatever reason. There's really no comparison between the following two choruses: "So baby pull me closer in the backseat of your Rover / That I know you can't afford / Bite that tattoo on your shoulder / Pull the sheets right off the corner / Of the mattress that you stole / From your roommate back in Boulder / We ain't ever getting older" "So baby, come light me up and maybe I'll let you on it / A little bit dangerous, but baby, that's how I want it / A little less conversation, and a little more touch my body / Cause I’m so into you, into you, into you / Got everyone watchin' us, so baby, let's keep it secret / A little bit scandalous, but baby, don’t let them see it / A little less conversation and a little more touch my body / Cause I’m so into you, into you, into you, oh yeah" "Into You" has plausible deniability. "Closer" does not. "Into You" is about a clandestine love affair, "Closer" is about... I don't even know what it's really about besides maybe reuniting with an old flame and being so horny you have sex in your car after drinking yourself stupidly drunk. There seems to be no real deeper meaning to the song besides "Oh, look at how edgy we are! Public sex! Stolen things! Drunkenness!!!!". It's like a 14 year old's every idea of what "cool" teenagers do all rolled into one meaningless song. Seriously, take a look at the lyrics. You also don't license music on a per artist basis, you do it on a per song basis. Maybe they'll get some kind of discount for licensing 2 songs at the same time, but it won't be much. There's no reason for them to license a song they know they're unlikely to ever use if it costs them tens of thousands of dollars. JDU, as online content, is not rated by the age ratings boards. However, Ubisoft still self-censors JDU content the same way they would on-disc content. Why? To keep the boards happy. And the boards will decidedly **not** be happy if JDU became a cesspool of explicitness. If all JD2018 had a 50 song roster of kids songs and then they added 200 songs about sex, sex and sex and didn't censor a single word of it to JDU the same year, the ratings boards would have a conniption and penalise Ubisoft for it in all upcoming JD games or potentially even **re-rate** the game. The online content not being rated is more of protection for the ratings boards, not the companies that release the games. Nobody can tell the ESRB they were wrong to give JD2017 an E despite "Closer" being in it (if "Closer" is, in fact, going to be added to JDU) because it wasn't in the game that the ESRB reviewed. However, the ESRB can still penalize Ubisoft for deceiving them, sending them a vanilla game that was pretty child-friendly and then adding a lot of explicit content afterwards as DLC. We've seen this happpen already. "GTA: San Andreas" originally had an in-game mini-game that had the main character have on-screen sex with his chosen girlfriend (you could choose one among several female NPCs). Rockstar didn't remove its code from the game before release, they merely disabled it from being able to be triggered through normal play. But it was discovered and a mod was made to enable it again on the PC version of the game. The ESRB (USA) re-rated the game from Mature to Adults Only, which is basically a death sentence in the U.S. since it prevented the game from being able to be displayed on shelves or advertised at all (so customers would have to ask for it before store employees could tell them whether or not the store stocked the game) and the Australian ratings board refused it a classification at all, which made it illegal to sell the game in Australia. Rockstar quickly scrambled to release a version of the game with the mini-game's code entirely removed. So, again, if Ubisoft decides to make JDU a cesspool of sex, drugs and violence, it **will** affect the core games' (those that have JDU) age ratings. Just adding "Closer" is unlikely to do so, but the ratings boards will not be happy and it's a start towards them turning in Ubisoft.